Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

harder to read than my stuff but that's another story.

That it is harder for YOU to read than your stuff does not mean that is necessarily true for anyone else.

...indeed, it is an issue of identity, and as "Greeks" and "Turks" agitate for their Agenda with more finality, i surmise, under the circumstances, so too those Cypriot (about half the population) will be compelled no longer to remain silent. In acts and demonstrations, they will signal their unity against "them"

I hope you are right. What is needed is pan Cypriot political parties that stand candidates in elections in both the RoC and TRNC. Akel may be a source of hope but we have far to go yet imo.

with a simple choice, under the Flag of Cyprus, because it is a powerful symbol which as yet has not been used specifically to expose those not Cypriot. (i shutter thinking, in Cyprus, how that could turn out; talking about Flags, and extremists' feelings about their own: but violence is not the only outcome.)

I understand that for YOU the RoC flag is a powerful symbol of unity. What you appear unable to grasps is that for many Cypriots, true Cypriots, progressive Cypriots that yearn for genuine unity, it is a powerful blood stained symbol of our failure. It is like an obsession with you where it becomes the one and only indicator of if someone is Greek or "Greek", Turkish of "Turkish" regardless of anything else they might do or say as indivduals.

...what do Cypriots want, i ask; never mind the "Greeks"and the "Turks".

What I want is a unitary state where it genuinely does not matter what kind of Cypriot and to what degree you might be. It is that simple for me.

And if in a BBF Cypriots, as Individuals, (also an identity) represent themselves as Cypriots, what is wrong with Cypriot Constituencies representing them as Persons?

...intentions count; what as persons they do to demonstrate in a majority their Goodwill toward the minorities among them.

(how lucky i feel living in a BBF like Canada, how much i enjoy the same hope for Cypriots)

What is wrong with BBF as a solution ? Just about everything imo. Lets take it one term at a time.

What is wrong with a bizonal Cyprus ? What is wrong with it is that in order to persevere it in to the future it is necessary to place potential limits on where a given Cypriot individual may live or work or be represented politically. It is simply just not compatible with my definition of what I want as a Cypriot as defined above. Canada is not bizonal in this sense as far as I can see but I am no expert on Canada ?

What is wrong with bicommunal ? Bicommunality means I am not free as a Cypriot to vote or stand for any Cypriot political party I might chose to but must chose either one set or another of political parties defined by differences to other Cypriots. It is simply just not compatible with my definition of what I want as a Cypriot as defined above. Canada is not bicommunal in this sense as far as I can see ?

What is wrong with federal ? It is simply in efficient in a country the population size of Cyprus and also simply unnecessary if only enough Cypriots would chose to not define themselves by their differences to others Cypriots and not their commonalities. Canada is federal in this sense as far as I can see but it is much larger geographically and by population.

[Sotos]

What does it matter when the self-determination rights of peoples was established? Once it was established it applied to all those who were eligible.

All you are doing is conflating the right with how that right might be implemented in a given case. You want the right, for TC, to be implemented as if Cyprus had become a part of Greece before such rights were recognized. The reasons why you want the right implemented for TC in this way is obvious and it is nothing to do with the right itself and consistency or fairness and is everything to do with supporting your narrative imo.

No, what I am saying is that a right is a right, regardless of when it was officially recognized as such, something which you admitted.

It is like telling me that the abolishment of slavery would only apply to newly born people, and not to those already slaves for years or decades.

No it is more akin to you telling me that if the state introduces a right for free dental treatment, you want money back for treatment you had before that right was established because that suits you.

No, I didn't say that the slaves had to be paid for the work they have done until that point (although that would be even better if it was possible). But when a human right is recognized then it has to be implemented for all, no excuses. If it is a human right violation for Greeks to rule over Turks against their will, then the same is true for Turks ruling over Greeks against their will.

You are just trying to find an excuse as to why your group of people deserves such right while others don't, i.e double standards.

GC as a people who were not British had a right, once such rights were established and recognised, to not be ruled in their own homeland by the British against their will. TC as a people who were not Greek, once such rights were established, did not have the right to not be ruled in their own homeland by Greece against their will. This appears to me to be your position whilst you accuse me of double standards ?

TCs are a minority in Cyprus. So their homeland (in which they are a minority) it is bound to be ruled mostly by others. If you are a minority you can't have self-rule.

And even if the date of officially establishing the self-determination rights somehow mattered, I should inform you that this date was 14 December 1960, which is after the London-Zurich agreements for Cyprus.

You are clutching at straws here. The entire struggle for the end of British rule in Cyprus be it to replace it with enosis or independence was based on the existance and recognition internationally of the right of peoples to self determination.

No, you were clutching at straws when you tried to use the date that this right was officially recognized to claim that you can have this right while those whose countries were created before this right was officially recognized shall never have this right.

Furthermore, you say that self-determination right isn't about territory. About what is it then? And how are all those privileges such as 30% government positions for an ethnic group of 18% associated with such right?

It is about commonalities that make a group a "people" and the right to not be forced to be ruled by those who are "other" than yourself. Nor am I claiming that the rights granted to the TC community under the 60s agreements were a great solution without problems. However to claim that they were entirely unconnected with trying to find a balance between one peoples rights as a people, who had chosen to define themselves as "other" than TC, and TC as a people who shared the same homeland is, to me, a clear example of denying reality to suit a narrative.

You are making it up that there is such "right". When you are an ethnic minority in a territory those who rule the territory will most likely be "others". Your right as an ethnic minority is for your members to be treated equally and each of them have 1 vote like everybody else. You can't refuse the rule of others when the majority population is "other".

The will of the people of Rhodes was as well known as that of the people of Cyprus. In the case of Rhodes the will of the people was respected.

You can not put in to effect the will of a people by powers other than that people deciding what it is those people want. You want to portray the transfer of Rhodes and the people of Rhodes from British rule to Greek rule as being driven by a recognition of the right to self determination of the people of Rhodes. It was not and could not have been because they were not consulted. They were never given any choice between independence or union with Greece. That if they had of been given they might well have chosen union over Independence does not change the reality that this transfer was not one based on the self determination of the people of Rhodes.

Obviously the British didn't do what they did because of recognition of self-determination rights, because the British don't give a fuck about such thing. But what they did in this case was what the majority of the people of Rhodes wanted, so not against their rights.

Ok, so Pakistanis also had a right of self-determination in the 1940s, and yet Greeks in Anatolia 2 decades earlier didn't have any such right? Maybe you have to be Muslim to have such right?

You first challenge me to give an example of a place that ended colonial rule after the principal of self determination of peoples was established that contained more than one "peoples" and where separate states for each was the means by which their rights were to be implemented, with the implication that such recognition of two peoples and separate states for each was totally atypical and unprecedented. When I give such an example, you just switch to your invalid historical comparisons and throw in a bit of Islamophobia to boot.

If TC existing as a minority community in a Greece state was a valid basis on which their right to self determination could be implemented, because Greeks existed in a Turkish state formed before such rights were recognized, then why would such not also be a valid for the GC community existing as a minority in the Turkish state ? And you accuse me of double standards to suit my narrative ?

Here is a map of India a few decades before the end of British Empire rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition ... gions3.jpg

Here is a map of East Med. a few decades before the end of the Ottoman Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_gr ... rope_(1896),_ethnic_groups.jpg

You can clearly see 2 things:

a) The Muslims in India formed the majority over 2 large parts of the country. Their self-determination was given over the parts where they were the majority. This doesn't mean Muslims didn't exist elsewhere in India, but obviously they could not get self-determination in areas where they are just a minority!
b) The Greeks formed the majority in both Cyprus and the western coast of Anatolia. Clearly the Turks should have gotten their self-determination in the territories where they were the majority, the Greeks should have gotten self-determination in the areas where they are the majority, and then the human and democratic rights of the minorities should have been respected. This would have been the right way of establishing Greek and Turkish nation states, not genocides and ethnic cleansing.

Not really. How can you be liberated when foreigners write your constitution and impose it on you? Not to mention the foreign so called "guarantors", foreign judges of the Supreme court etc. The only way to get a bit of freedom was by ignoring those things.

How can you be liberated when foreigners proscribe you from uniting with another state should you wish to ? Why can that not be ignore ? In the interests of historical accuracy the bulk of the 60s agreements were created and drafted not by the British but in fact by Greece and Turkey together.

According to the UN resolution for self determination (1541), "Integration with an independent State" was a valid choice for the people of the territory to choose. It should have been up to the Cypriot people if they want to choose such integration or independence, and in case of independence it should have been the Cypriot people alone to decide our own constitution and not any other countries.

Why would they want to be downgraded to community leaders once they got used in being Presidents and Ministers of a country?

In a scenario where by enosis was achieved in 1960 you really think Makarios would have just retreated to a position of spiritual or community leader of GC and left politics and the power that brings ? That it is inconceivable that he would have presented himself as the great deliverer of Cyprus back in to the Hellenic fold and implementer of the Mengali ideal and used as that as a platform to seek even greater temporal politcal power in a Greek state that now included Cyprus ?

Your scenario is way too exaggerated even for Makarios. But it wasn't Makarios alone, it was a whole political elite. Unless Cypriots alone were to rule the whole of Greece, which is highly unlikely, uniting with Greece would mean that most of them would not have the high ranking offices they could have with an independent Cyprus.

The only reason that enosis remained theoretically an objective after 1960 was that this "Independence" we were given was "Independence" in name only, and Greek Cypriots could be better of with enosis.

By 1965 TC had none of the rights granted to them under the constitution. A majority had fled their homes and were living in enclaves and a GC only run state had told them they could not take up their places in government unless they first accepted the amendments that state had made without them and against the legality of the constitution. Yet significant numbers of GC still sought enosis and went on to a launch a coup and declare enosis that might well have succeeded had it not been for the action of Turkey in response. Yet you want me to believe that there was no real reason for TC to fear enosis post 1960 ?

The number of people who supported the coup were not significant at all. Furthermore it was launched by Greek officers who were in Cyprus and who were taking commands from the Junta. If we had a proper independence then there would be no military of other countries in Cyprus at all, so such coup would not be possible.

I recognize as valid the TC concerns in case of enosis, so I have no problem to accept that part, and I don't think that requiring TC agreement for the change of constitution would be something unfair (as long as the constitution was proper and fair to begin with), since there are many countries that require a lot more than a simple majority for the change of constitution.

Requiring more than 50% majority for constitutional change is not the same thing as requiring separate consent from different groups / communities. You say that you personally would not have any problem with TC having a right to veto constitutional change against the will of a GC majority because you personally do not see that as unfair. However that is not the point. The point is did the GC leadership or people believe such was fair and acceptable and make that clear to all and sundry ?

I think it would have been accepted as at least something not provocatively unfair by the great majority and if the constitution was fair to begin with then this would never became a point of major contention as there wouldn't be any urgent need for changes.

As I said I recognize you had valid reasons to oppose it, so I don't blame you for the conflict in the 50s. But our side compromised to give up enosis, and although it would naturally take some time for GCs to forget enosis, the greed of your side was and continues to be the main issue. Obviously the coup (if you want to include that as an "enosis" thing) also played a part in the mess we are today, and our unrelated to enosis greed at certain points as well.

Partition in India as a means of implementing the people's there right to self determination was a disaster. As was partition in Cyprus. As was the 60's constitution as drafted by Greece and Turkey. I accept all of this, What I do not accept is that the rights granted to the TC community in the 60s agreements were nothing at all to do with their right to self determination in the face of a GC population that chose to define them as other to them and seek to impose a future on them as such against their will. That it was simply about TC greed. That I do not accept.

If we can understand what went wrong in the past and why then we can find a future path that removes the causes of previous failures. If we, a majority of us, on both sides chose to define ourselves as Cypriot, as a single people despite differences in language and religion, then the problems of the past dissolve away.

I find such discussion so depressing and with you Sotos more than many others because I have in many ways and significant degrees much respect for you and your ability to think rationally. My antidote is to go and spend some time with Cypriots that ae not locked in to their respective 50 year old narratives. We have to stop using our intellect to defend narratives against reality and that we know have brought us nothing but disaster to date. I am doing my best to do this. Are you ?

Erolz, I think you are the one who is sticking to the Turkish narrative of "It was the fault of Greek Cypriots because they wanted enosis".

I can put myself in TCs shoes, and I can fully understand why they didn't want enosis and why they fought against it, even when this meant collaborating with the colonialists. So today, with hindsight, I agree that independence (a proper one) would be the best solution for all Cypriots.

But you should also put yourself in 1950s GC shoes and understand that from our perspective Cyprus was no different than any other Greek island and that we deserved liberation like them. At that time out of the 100s of inhabited islands in the Mediterranean none were independent. You might think of independence as an obvious choice today, but back then it was not at all obvious. For GCs enosis equaled liberation, after centuries of British, Ottoman, Latin etc etc rule! Even today it is not clear if independence for Cyprus is actually possible. What we were given in 1960 was independence in name only.

The same is true with our identity. It might feel natural for you today to say that you are "not Turkish", but back in the 50s nearly all people felt Greek or Turkish (or Armenian, Maronite, Latin). So when you judge the people of the 50s you need to see things from their perspective.

And about the "TC greed" let me clarify that we are all greedy. It is just part of our human nature. It is just that historically we had much smaller periods of time where we had the opportunity to be as greedy. But the fact is that both Turkey and UK took/take advantage of this natural tendency of people (in this case the TCs), in order to promote their own interests on our expense.

[repulsewarrior]

...let me explain the terms as i see them, as i imagine Cypriots see them; those not "Greek" and not "Turkish":

Bicommunal: the Citizen as an Individual, the Citizen as a Person.

Bizonal: (geographically speaking) the State, its components as Constituencies.

Federation: a State based on Universal Principals, where Individuals may rely on a Rule of Law without distinction or discrimination, where in effect all people are equal in their capacity to find and/or create a rewarding living/life.

...i will go on:

Constituency (Constituent Assembly): a sum of territorial jurisdictions where service is provided through self-representation as having the capacity to serve minorities, providing their special needs, while as a majority, holding the Agenda, to promote and sustain this distinct identity.

Enclave: a territorial jurisdiction where service is provided to its electorate from its respective Constituent Assembly.
...(if they spot the whole island, beside the re-population of the island, they end the Green Line as a "border", because i believe it will demonstrate Justice seen, from us the living, to the dead, the missing, and the displaced.)

Good Government: equality in the Law, equality in Representation, equality in voting and transparency;
...at all levels of government.

Federal Government: (...have you read my manifesto?)

...indeed, you are not alone Erolz, but under the circumstances i must ask, who is the dreamer? While kikapu and i have both demonstrated that a BBF, in Cyprus, may be appreciated by Cypriots, providing for self-representation that brings them the benefit of being closer to what their taxes will do, for them. You are wishing it will be resolved with a single "government", (though so do I, for the same reason); as though "being" Greek and Turkish are not as important to the People, as Cypriots, swamped with the influence of English in their lives, this priority comes second because money in the end matters more. But, which is more realistic under the circumstances?

How do we protect our Ethnography, and our way of living? How instead can we encourage its diversity to thrive?

And in finding our solution to the Problem, in Cyprus, something which may be emulated by those affected by the Problem as well, is this not the problem?

...a BBF may not be an ideal choice, a million people, generally speaking, do not need such an apparatus, but Cypriots do.

...the Flag was bloodied by those who to this day treat it like a rag; it remains a powerful tool to Cypriots, and in using it as such in exposing "them", the People, Cypriots, take back the word ENOSIS, from "them" as well. A "new" Flag, like a "new" Cyprus rewards the interlocutors with a workable solution but it ignores the fact that it is Cypriots suffering under "their" stewardship, and because of it. It still remains a symbol for what we as a People aspire to, despite what one can describe of it corrupted, and by who. Flying the Flag of Cyprus, i suggest, that there is nothing better a Cypriot can do, for Cyprus; you may think about that. (and yes the thought of it, Flags of Cyprus crowding out the others, is fantastic as things are, yet...)

cheers.

[erolz66]

Sotos, if you say to me, as a GC, I understand the historic role our pursuit of enosis played in Cyprus being as it is today and having learnt from that I now seek a better future for all of us as Cypriots, in a unitary Cypriot state based on a notion of a Cypriot nation that includes and requires my community as part of it as well as your, in order to make it different and separate from the Greek nation or Turkish nation or any other nation, then I am with you 100% and will struggle along side you to achieve this.

When you say to me as a GC that the status in Cyprus today is entirely unconnected to the historic GC pursuit of enosis over independence and is merely a function of an unfair constitution, that had it been 'fair' could not and would not have led to enosis, would not have led to any discrimination towards me as a TC in my own homeland for no other reason than I am TC and not Greek or GC and that all that is required for a solution is for me to accept such a fair constitution and for you as a GC to do nothing, make no commitment or effort to building a Cypriot nation that includes and requires my community in it, I am simply unable as a TC to advocate for such a solution premised on such things.

[Sotos]

Sotos, if you say to me, as a GC, I understand the historic role our pursuit of enosis played in Cyprus being as it is today and having learnt from that I now seek a better future for all of us as Cypriots, in a unitary Cypriot state based on a notion of a Cypriot nation that includes and requires my community as part of it as well as your, in order to make it different and separate from the Greek nation or Turkish nation or any other nation, then I am with you 100% and will struggle along side you to achieve this.

Yes, this is what I am saying.

When you say to me as a GC that the status in Cyprus today is entirely unconnected to the historic GC pursuit of enosis over independence and is merely a function of an unfair constitution, that had it been 'fair' could not and would not have led to enosis, would not have led to any discrimination towards me as a TC in my own homeland for no other reason than I am TC and not Greek or GC and that all that is required for a solution is for me to accept such a fair constitution and for you as a GC to do nothing, make no commitment or effort to building a Cypriot nation that includes and requires my community in it, I am simply unable as a TC to advocate for such a solution premised on such things.

What I am saying regarding the past is this:

GCs didn't do anything unexpected. With Cyprus having a majority Greek population, enosis was the most obvious way of being liberated from foreign rule. Ethnic minorities living in a region without a defined territory of their own are rarely (if ever) asked for their separate opinion about if and how such liberation should happen. Greeks who are ethnic minorities outside of Greece know this very well. So what I am asking from you is to recognize this. Today I can fully understand why the TCs opposed enosis, since due to the hostility between Greece and Turkey it would be likely that they would face discrimination. A proper independence would have been a better solution for all Cypriots, and with hindsight I recognize this. Asking for our freedom in a such a way without considering the discrimination that TCs could face was greedy and inconsiderate.

Now about the TCs: It was not unexpected from them to fight against enosis for the reasons I explained. It was also not unexpected from them to accept all the privileges that were given to them by those agreements. Nobody would say no to more power and privileges when such things are handed to him. We would have done the exact same thing. But today, in hindsight, I expect you to admit that TCs were indeed greedy to accept so many privileges which had absolutely nothing to do with preventing enosis. I am not saying that TCs should have gotten no special powers at all, I am just saying that such powers should have been proportional and reasonable. For example modifying the constitution would be something that could still require TC agreement, and there could be a requirement that 18% (i.e. proportional) of all government employees should be TCs etc, to ensure that TCs would not being discriminated. But the kind of privileges that were given to TCs were provocatively disproportional and discriminatory against GCs. This wasn't a constitution for the establishment of a new united Cypriot nation, but it was something created to maintain the divisions, and allow foreigners to continue to control Cyprus and serve their own interests on our expense.

So moving to today, enosis is not even a consideration and I am still not expecting the TCs to accept the ideal of one person one vote. What I am disappointed to see is that TCs still do not seem to realize that asking for so many disproportionately large amounts of powers and privileges makes our agreement nearly impossible, and even in the unlikely event that we were forced to accept such terms, that they wouldn't provide long term peace and stability. Most importantly it should have been clear to TCs by now that Turkey serves first and above all her own interests. The Turkish government isn't going to sacrifice the interests of 80 million Turks to serve 100 thousand TCs. If your leadership could see that such greed isn't for their benefit, and they had the balls to go against Turkey, then they could lower their demands to a reasonable level and have a win-win solution, within EU, which would be best for all Cypriots. Unfortunately it seems that Turkey keeps your leadership by the balls, and TCs became so accustomed to the expected powers and privileges in case of a solution, that a reasonable win-win solution has become impossible.

[erolz66]

Thanks Sotos.

[repulsewarrior]

...while it appears as though you disagree, you don't.

...if the Problem is a question of Identity, (excluding :Greeks" and "Turks",) what do Cypriots want?